These images are entrancing and inspiring, thank you for sharing. The digital 645 is truly and amazing camera. My question: could a legacy 645, loaded with a still currently available film stock, produce such images? Or does the high ISO of the D645 make this something the old 645 could never approach?

I'd go through the hassle of scanning if 1000 dollars worth of film gear could make similar pictures!

These images are entrancing and inspiring, thank you for sharing. The digital 645 is truly and amazing camera. My question: could a legacy 645, loaded with a still currently available film stock, produce such images? Or does the high ISO of the D645 make this something the old 645 could never approach?

I'd go through the hassle of scanning if 1000 dollars worth of film gear could make similar pictures!

Regards

Once again, thank you for the compliments. I think that transparencies, which I still like to shoot on my 4x5 have a look that digital does not quite replicate. This does not mean it's a better look, it's just different and some images and some light situations work better with it than others.

My main reason for going to the 645D was the fact that colour from film scans, especially negatives is a lot more difficult to tame. At the end of the day I think digital capture with something like the 645D has to many benefits over film to justify the cost of buying stock and paying for the development unless it's on a format that is far removed from the digital ones. A film 645 frame is still a little bigger than the 645D sensor, but not big enough to really change the optical properties of the image from it's digital counterpart. I think with a 6x7 frame you might start getting some properties that are unique and with 4x5 or bigger you definitely get something that is still worth scanning. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I have kind of made the journey from digital (Nikon D100) to 35mm film, to 6x6 medium format, to 4x5 large format and then back to mostly digital again. The 645D produces files that I can push around with more control than film scans.

Really want to compliment you on the pictures, they look really great, I just got back from Japan last week and actually saw and held a 645D for the first time ever, not sure I could carry that thing around for very long hehe, it's a tank.
The pictures really have amazing shadow detail, they almost look HDR-like in that there don't seem to be any dark shadows while not having blown out highlights. There is truly something different about these photos, they look amazing.
Definitely want to go back to Japan, Kyoto has to be one of my favourite all-time destinations.

The digital 645 is truly and amazing camera. My question: could a legacy 645, loaded with a still currently available film stock, produce such images? Or does the high ISO of the D645 make this something the old 645 could never approach?

I've never shot medium format film, so I don't speak from experience, but I do remember seeing a comparison between a 645 film scan and the 645D file, and in terms of print quality/image clarity the 645D won solidly. I don't recall what film was being used, but I believe it was a lower ISO, like 100, and was being compared to the 645D at the same ISO, so a fair comparison.

Again, not my results, just what I remember from reading the article, so please don't tear my head off if you've found otherwise based on your own experience.

What I can say from experience is that you can REALLY push the 645D files, especially bringing up the darks, with very little noise compared to my experience with other digital cameras (Canon 5D mark II). The 645D also has a very natural look to the files that I never found in Canon.

What I can say from experience is that you can REALLY push the 645D files, especially bringing up the darks, with very little noise compared to my experience with other digital cameras (Canon 5D mark II). The 645D also has a very natural look to the files that I never found in Canon.